Is security software a protection racket?
Summary: Microsoft is offering its new Windows OneCare Live security service at an irresistible low price. So why isn't it free?
Last week, Microsoft released pricing and licensing details for its forthcoming Windows OneCare Live service.
Here are the relevant facts from the announcement:
- The subscription-based service - which offers virus protection, a two-way firewall, a backup utility, system optimization, and (eventually) antispyware capabilities - is scheduled to go live in the U.S. in June.
- The annual subscription price of $49.95 will cover up to three PCs.
- If you sign up for the beta version and convert to a paid OneCare subscription between April 1st and April 30th, the price for the first year of service drops to $19.95.
I've been beta-testing the OneCare service for several months now, and it deserves a big thumbs-up for its target market of home users who want a no-fuss security solution. I'm also impressed that the base service is offered for use on up to three PCs. Microsoft already follows that practice for its Office Student and Teacher Edition, which allows "qualified educational users" to install and activate the software on up to three PCs.
A few things bother me about this announcement, however.
For starters, why isn't there a free antivirus component? Microsoft lists virus protection as one of the three "security essentials" in the Windows XP Security Center. Everything else in the OneCare Live package has a free equivalent, so why not this piece?
And how am I supposed to make an informed purchase decision based on effectiveness? With OneCare Live, as with virtually all its competitors, the only comparisons are based on features, eye candy, and reputation.
There's a long list of antivirus partners at Microsoft's Web site. After this announcement, I doubt that many are feeling much like partners. Especially when the announcement says:
We encourage you to take a look at what our competitors are offering – we’re confident that no one else is delivering a value like this for an “all-in-one” service on up to 3 PCs, like Windows OneCare Live.
I can already see the beginnings of an "arms war" among security software companies, with ads and whisper campaigns based on fear.
Two factors strongly influence Microsoft to charge for OneCare Live. For one thing, it costs a lot of money to run a 24/7 security response center, and someone has to pay for it. Perhaps more importantly, lawyers no doubt were involved in analyzing the antitrust aspects of this rollout. If Microsoft gives away a robust, full-featured security product, do they risk being hauled into court and charged with anti-competitive behavior?
Regardless, I wish that a basic version of OneCare Live were available as a free product for anyone running a compatible version of Windows. In this case, at least, I think there's a strong case for accepting security features as something that should be included in the base operating system. Go ahead and charge more for an upgraded version with better backup tools (like the capability to back up essential files online, a feature that's curiously lacking from this release). But please don't charge for basic protection.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
They can't give it away for free
What I wish the big box shops would start to do is bundle AVG or another free-for-home use Antivirus, instead of the 90 trial of Symantec. Most of the home machines I have worked on (weather to clean up, tune up, or just give the once over) have had subscriptions that ended more then 6 months before.
Why not?
aggressive at defedning
I'm actually surprised they got Defender out. But AV, with a million(billion?) dollar industry at stake? No, you?d have Vista Edition N Edition A version, or something?
So, you're saying
Because, really, there's no difference if MSFT has a component to automatically run updates and fix problems or fields an operating system that doesn't need that support.
Personally, I don't see it as any different than a service warranty. For three years you get free protection, included in the price of the OS, and then if you want to continue the protection it costs X through MSFT or Y through one of the others.
I think that would be perfectly legitimate. Heaven forbid Symantec should ever have to compete on a value basis. It would depend on how MSFT implmented it. If the anti-virus was part of the OS, difficult to remove and required a lot of advanced skill on the users part, then, yeah, there would be antitrust issues. If MSFT said you can use our service or any of these other fine products, then it's not.
Security goes way beyond the OS
this is exactly where antitrust is aiming at
I think it should be free!
charges for security. shouldn't this be part of the operating system?
Other operating systems do not have all the security problems in
Windows XP. Why not give it away to make Microsoft more equal to
it's OS competitors?
It sounds like just another way to charge the customer for what he
has already paid for, a secure operating system.
By that logic...
insanse
isn't it time that the freE OS guys and gals rolled out a MS compatible os, so anyone who wanted a half-assed, insecure and inoperable out of the box OS COULD USE THAT INSTEAD?
sorry about the caps lock. many years ago i would be in with the anti-M$ brigade, i even trained up with SUN for access to good technology, but this is now ridiculous. What is wrong with MS adding media, internet, antivirus etc.. to their core product? its like saying to a car manufaturer that they can't ship with engine or wheels. Oh no, god forbid you put a paint job or central locking on the car.
Linux, Solaris, HP, AIX, BeOS, Ubuntu, Mandrake, 0S2 - these are all alternatives to MS, the antitrust should look more carefuly at _exclusion_ of other software, not inclusion of essentials.
jm2c
The reason...
The reason they don't is that Symantec PAYS the OEMs for that bundling. What is the motive to bundle free AV software instead?
Carl Rapson
They got away with the firewall
They just want another cash cow.
Legalities
In the name of competition, the courts have made sure that the consumer will continue to PAY for security.
Firewalls vs Anti-Virus...
Otherwise I agree that MS should charge. It's called competition.. If MS has such a great product.. People will pay the price for it just like they do with other "charged" av solutions.
You CAN get good security for FREE.
Avast! Antivirus: Home version is free, plus it updates practicaly every day.
Zone Alarm: A solid firewall, make you almost stealthy.
You can find other free securityware from Suzi Turrner's "Geting Mad About Malware" blogs.
(No, I don't work for ZDN. I'm just a regular reader here!)
"You CAN get good security for FREE"
So instead of
No, I think I'll keep it simple.
Bill Gates recommends...
> software you would have switch OS's? Needing a complete wipe
> and install, all new software, and limiting our choices of
> hardware/software?
...that you switch OS's (to VISTA, naturally). This needs a complete wipe and install, all new software, and limiting our choices of hardware/software. I.e. you'll only be able to see hi-res video on "compliant hardware", and you'll have to throw away your current PC and monitor.
Stroke of Genius, tho. Make a security flawed OS and charge to protect it.
What a beautiful monopoly.
The Banjo
It's like a past Dilbert cartoon...
As Dilbert and Wally (the office slacker) walk away from the meeting, Wally happily proclaims he's going back to his cubicle and code himself a Ferrari.
(or something along those lines... it's been a few years since reading the cartoon)
ie, purposely write bug filled code and then profit from it by being paid to find his own mistakes (bugs).
Much like MS... produce and sell security-challenged code and then hope to profit by charging to make it secure.
Somehow for MS, it fits.
LOL (nt)